Author: larry
Date: Thu Feb 22 12:51:15 2007
New Revision: 13700
Modified:
doc/trunk/design/syn/S02.pod
doc/trunk/design/syn/S03.pod
doc/trunk/design/syn/S06.pod
Log:
More Y XX - Z X clarifications
Now allow constant $?TABSTOP = 4 syntax for user to set compiler variables.
Modified: doc/trunk/design/syn/S02.pod
==
--- doc/trunk/design/syn/S02.pod(original)
+++ doc/trunk/design/syn/S02.podThu Feb 22 12:51:15 2007
@@ -12,9 +12,9 @@
Maintainer: Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 10 Aug 2004
- Last Modified: 15 Feb 2007
+ Last Modified: 22 Feb 2007
Number: 2
- Version: 88
+ Version: 89
This document summarizes Apocalypse 2, which covers small-scale
lexical items and typological issues. (These Synopses also contain
@@ -1567,12 +1567,25 @@
in fact be dynamically scoped within the compiler itself, and only
appear to be lexically scoped because dynamic scopes of the compiler
resolve to lexical scopes of the program. All C$? variables are considered
-constants, and may not be modified after being compiled in.
+constants, and may not be modified after being compiled in. The user
+is also allowed to define or (redefine) such constants:
+
+constant $?TABSTOP = 4; # assume heredoc tabs mean 4 spaces
+
+(Note that the constant declarator always evaluates its initialization
+expression at compile time.)
C$?FILE and C$?LINE are your current file and line number, for
instance. C? is not a shortcut for a package name like C* is.
-Instead of C$?OUTER::SUB you probably want to write C OUTER::$?SUB
-.
+Instead of C$?OUTER::SUB you probably want to write C OUTER::$?SUB .
+Within code that is being run during the compile, such as BEGIN blocks,
+or macro bodies, or constant initializers, the compiler variables must
+be referred to as C COMPILING$?LINE if the bare C$?LINE would
+be taken to be the value during the compilation of the currently running
+code rather than the eventual code of the user's compilation unit. For
+instance, within a macro body C$?LINE is the line within the macro
+body, but C COMPILING::$?LINE is the line where the macro was invoked.
+See below for more about the CCOMPILING pseudo package.
Here are some possibilities:
Modified: doc/trunk/design/syn/S03.pod
==
--- doc/trunk/design/syn/S03.pod(original)
+++ doc/trunk/design/syn/S03.podThu Feb 22 12:51:15 2007
@@ -1107,6 +1107,13 @@
('a', '1'), ('a', '2'), ('b', '1'), ('b', '2')
+This becomes a flat list in C@ context and a list of arrays in C@@ context:
+
+say @(a b X 1 2)
+'a', '1', 'a', '2', 'b', '1', 'b', '2'
+say @@(a b X 1 2)
+['a', '1'], ['a', '2'], ['b', '1'], ['b', '2']
+
=item *
Cross hyperoperators
Modified: doc/trunk/design/syn/S06.pod
==
--- doc/trunk/design/syn/S06.pod(original)
+++ doc/trunk/design/syn/S06.podThu Feb 22 12:51:15 2007
@@ -1518,7 +1518,7 @@
right ** =$a op ($b op $c)**
non cmp = .. ILLEGAL cmp
chain == eq ~~($a op $b) and ($b op $c) eqv
-list| ^ ¥ op($a, $b, $c) |
+list| ^ Z op($a; $b; $c) |
Note that operators Cequiv to relationals are automatically considered
chaining operators. When creating a new precedence level, the chaining
